FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet • Hacker News Board

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#291

Post by jessaustin » Thu, May 15, 2014, 10:47 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #236

sandstrom wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting that broadband is so expensive in the US compared to many other countries. Population density is sometimes pointed to. It may be, but I also know that even many of the most rural parts of Norway and Sweden broadband [fiber] is prevalent. I would guess competition (and less lobbying) would improve things. Perhaps Google Fiber can shake things up. - http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383 - http…

The U.S. is not far behind Sweden in global average connection speeds: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai-soti-q413.pdf?WT.mc_i... (Page 19, Figure 20). Sweden directly subsidized deployment of fiber in rural areas: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-w... . It also required municipalities to build certain infrastructure, which is something the U.S. federal government lacks the power to do.

Sweden directly subsidized deployment of fiber...

Yeah, so did USA. The only difference was that Sweden actually got the fiber they subsidized. We've been over this before.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#292

Post by Bahamut » Thu, May 15, 2014, 10:48 PM UTC

IanDrake wrote: post #222

rayiner wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really do not want broadband classified under Title II. You will get the war you want, but it will be a war everyone loses. Why do you think DSL is such a ghetto? It's because it's subject to a higher level of regulations, and nobody wants to invest money in such a highly-regulated industry: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz... . Classifying cable broadband under Title II will definitel…

This is something most people don't seem to get. Government control == stagnation.

Japan had stagnant internet for a while in the 90s, while the US was the standard bearer - they also used to have a paucity of competition, and when the government instituted regulations to increase competition, they worked as intended, resulting in having one of the best broadband infrastructures in the world.

Government control can be good when the traditional market fails abysmally.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#293

Post by BryanCrow » Thu, May 15, 2014, 10:52 PM UTC

mortenjorck wrote: post #187

sinak wrote: post #81

The title and post are both quite misleading. The commissioners didn't approve Tom Wheeler's plan (to regulate the Internet under Section 706), but voted to go ahead with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and commenting period. Tom Wheeler stated multiple times that Title II classification is still on the table. There'll now be a 120 day commenting period; 60 days of comments from companies and the public, and then 6…

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicali…

Before we all jump on the idea of Title II, let's consider the implications. Specifically Terrifs. If last-mile ISPs can start charging Terrifs for use of their lines (like the telcos do), this will have the opposite of the desired effect on pricing and will lead to arbitrage like we've seen with the Telcos (these Terrifs allowed NetZero to make money by keeping your modem connected... essentially billing everyone in the country through the FCC's "Federal Universal Service Charge" on your phone bill instead of their users). This is also where the "Family Plan" came from. Honestly, it's shocking how ill informed most people in the tech industry are on what they're asking for here...

Why do we need any regulation in the first place? Net Neutrality has never truly existed. Netflix has the cheapest bandwidth deal of anyone... And they're trying to fool their users into lobbying the gov't for them to keep in that way. Small start-ups have always payed more per Megabit. That's the free market at work. You pay less for bulk. It makes sense. Every content provider (website, video service, shared host, VoIP provider, etc) has always been able to pay for priority at some level (be it through exclusive private fiber channels, faster DNS, the use of CDNs, or even QoS for latency-critical services like VoIP & gaming). This has generally been a good thing. Yes, some local monopolistic ISPs are acting up and something has to be done about that. But calling them utilities will only give them the power to impose terrifs and charge more... the opposite of what we want.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#294

Post by jessaustin » Thu, May 15, 2014, 10:56 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #219

mortenjorck wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicali…

You really do not want broadband classified under Title II. You will get the war you want, but it will be a war everyone loses. Why do you think DSL is such a ghetto? It's because it's subject to a higher level of regulations, and nobody wants to invest money in such a highly-regulated industry: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Goldman-Sachs-Wants-Veriz... . Classifying cable broadband under Title II will definitel…

Except the telecom companies make up 6 of the top 25 companies with the highest U.S. capital expenditures...

Do you think no one is paying attention? We know very well that VZN & ATT's capital spending is in wireless, not wireline:

http://stopthecap.com/2013/07/18/verizon-diverting-landline-...

Sure, one might see this as a sign that existing wireline regulations are already too onerous, and Ma Bell's poor daughters have to take their ball and go home. But the fact is, they know their wireline market is a captive one, and customers will stay no matter how little they invest. As soon as they bribe their way to a Sprint takeover, we'll see wireless investment head in the same direction.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#295

Post by jessaustin » Thu, May 15, 2014, 11:03 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #276

rayiner wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you read some of these agreements, they're usually online. Here's the one for my town: http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf . These aren't sweetheart deals. Generally, they extract millions of dollars for tangentially-related municipal programs, and then have build-out requirements forcing you to serve areas above a certain density even if you can't sign up enough customers to make it profitab…

> the terms are unattractive enough such that only the big de-facto monopolies are willing to take the deal. Which means that these are effectively sweetheart deals for the big de facto monopolies, since without them there would certainly be an incentive for smaller competitors to enter the market. That may not have been the intent of the municipal governments, so "sweetheart deal" may not be the best descriptive ter…

Yes, there is something of Br'er Rabbit in giant incumbent telcos' complaining about regulations. "Please mister please don't use the complicated franchise agreement my lawyer sent you that is actually written to conform exactly to my M&Ps!"

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#296

Post by kumbasha » Thu, May 15, 2014, 11:09 PM UTC

rcraft wrote: post #278

mortenjorck wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. That's 120 days to make Title II a household word. Broadband's current classification as an information service, as if it's some sort of MovieFone for the 21st century, is so far removed from reality that the public should be in an uproar about it. Verizon itself has sought to classify its fiber buildouts under Title II so it can get fixed-rate access to existing right-of-way infrastructure, [1] on the technicali…

Thoughts on what effect title II designation would have on innovative ISPs such as Google fiber and webpass? Would Google still be inclined to invest money in Fiber?

Google is generally capable of thinking long term. The major broadband providers in America are incapable of thinking beyond the next few quarterly statements--otherwise they would not have gotten themselves into this mess.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#297

Post by little_lebowski » Thu, May 15, 2014, 11:13 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #257

gph wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America. Looks like most of Europe doesn't have this problem...

Au contraire. Europe has enormous problems. In places like France, cellular service has been getting faster and cheaper because of competition. For example, Free joined the "big three" in France for cell service and suddenly prices have fallen and quality has greatly improved compared the the days when France Telecom controlled everything. That's the opposite of your theory that nationalization "improves" things. Mex…

What speed is your residential internet connection and how much do you pay for it each month?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#298

Post by jessaustin » Thu, May 15, 2014, 11:16 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #58

ColinDabritz wrote: post #20

"And he promised a series of measures to ensure the new paid prioritization practices are done fairly and don't harm consumers." I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) Anything less is open for abuse. Perhaps "Discrimination" is a good w…

> I have a measure in mind that won't harm consumers. Don't allow ISPs to discriminate against users regarding their already paid for internet traffic based on what they request. (Gee that sounds a lot like net neutrality.) So you'd ban the large number of existing in-ISP CDNs and CDN/ISP partnerships, as well? (e.g. YouTube or Akamai mirroring content to servers directly on an ISP's network, to improve bandwidth and…

Well those are non sequiturs. Data sitting on a CDN is not "traffic", until it is actually traffic. CDNs function not by prioritizing traffic, but by reducing traffic.

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#299

Post by esbranson » Thu, May 15, 2014, 11:34 PM UTC

Systemic33 wrote: post #100

adamio wrote: post #12

The internet is slowly being transformed into cable television

Starting with the "land of opportunity and freedom" Insert picture of eagle ... wow, such irony. And then people are up in arms about moving backbone internet functionality out of US, claiming that the internet is in its most free form when situated in America. With this FCC ruling, it's more or less confirmed that this statement is a joke. American freedom seems to be restricted to the freedom to wield a firearm.

Hypercriticize much?

Re: FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet

#300

Post by sliverstorm » Thu, May 15, 2014, 11:35 PM UTC

sounds wrote: post #227

relampago wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone here opposed to net neutrality? Haven't heard a good argument for this action yet.

I think there is a semantic problem with just throwing out the words "net neutrality," because I see two different sides pulling in two different directions. I think no one is opposed to ISPs operating in their customer's best interest, specifically delivering internet at advertised speed. I think there's a real need for more ISP competition and less collusion/vertical integration (NBC-Universal-Comcast-Time Warner).…

Comcast is threatening to divest themselves of the ISP business and just be a media company

No kidding? I hadn't heard about that.

I wonder if that means they'll be selling off the pipes cheap...